1 – “All human organizations evolve to maximize rents, until it is impossible for those organizations to adapt to change or shocks.” 2 – “Organizations that collapse due to the maximization of rents, and inability to adapt to shocks, do not recover.” 3 – “Collapse is caused by competing organizations with fewer or lower accumulated rents – seeking military economic religious and demographic expansion.” 4 -“Collapse is preventable by extermination of rents, by the preservation of markets for association, reproduction, production, production of commons, production of defense.” 5 – “Markets in everything are producible by a government that shifts from redistributive(liberal), to productive(classical), to warfare (fascism) in response to changing circumstances.” 6 – “Unfortunately, the human intuition is to pursue decreases in effort to calculate, and to maximize regularity, so that fringe opportunities are of the lowest cost to seize with the lowest need to organize to exploit them. And therefore, the human intuition is false (counter) at scale – as in all things. Those who seek regularity seek the luxury of freedom from adaptation”. 7 – “ergo the only possible means of institutionalizing scale is markets in everything, under a government unable to institutionalize policies that provide discounts in exchange for reducing the ability to adapt to shocks.” 8 – “that which does not kill you does in fact make you stronger, and the process of continually maintaining and building strength to resist the vicissitudes of man and nature, is produced via negativa : by preservation of competition in al things using markets in all things.”
Source: Original Site Post
-
We Are Always Wrong
You know, if we had let the soviets expand their ‘communism’ into the islamic countries, they would have crushed islamism, enforced education, and removed muslim illiteracy as well as superstition. Yet their economies would have eventually failed as all socialist economies do. And then they would have transferred to consumer capitalism and markets out of envy rather than resistance. We are always wrong. Kings were far better than democracies.
-
We Are Always Wrong
You know, if we had let the soviets expand their ‘communism’ into the islamic countries, they would have crushed islamism, enforced education, and removed muslim illiteracy as well as superstition. Yet their economies would have eventually failed as all socialist economies do. And then they would have transferred to consumer capitalism and markets out of envy rather than resistance. We are always wrong. Kings were far better than democracies.
-
Chinese Insularism Is the Optimum Strategy
My understanding of history is that the Chinese insularism, is absolutely the optimum strategy. The principle problem wth the chinese was that they failed to solve the problem of competing interests, and tort law to resolve them, which prevented them from solving the problems of (formal) reason, and science. If the romans had built the walls, (which they started) they would have given us ‘china’ in the same way that the mountains gave india, and the desert gave africa, and the oceans gave australia and the americas, the central problem has been the tribalism of the people of the desert and steppe: the middle east.
-
Chinese Insularism Is the Optimum Strategy
My understanding of history is that the Chinese insularism, is absolutely the optimum strategy. The principle problem wth the chinese was that they failed to solve the problem of competing interests, and tort law to resolve them, which prevented them from solving the problems of (formal) reason, and science. If the romans had built the walls, (which they started) they would have given us ‘china’ in the same way that the mountains gave india, and the desert gave africa, and the oceans gave australia and the americas, the central problem has been the tribalism of the people of the desert and steppe: the middle east.
-
British Responsibility for Islam.
—“What is often forgotten is Britain’s responsibility. Islam prior to 1918 was centralized and centred in Istanbul – it was being codified there (and in Ottoman Cairo) and was modernizing. … When Britain backed the Arabs in 1915, they also backed the Saud family and, intententionally, the reactionary Islam of the Arab peninsular to use against the Ottomans – as a consequence we’ve seen the rise to prominence of Wahabbist Islam.”—Aaron Kahland Yes, I think it’s not understood that they Koran in use today was written in the 1920’s.
-
British Responsibility for Islam.
—“What is often forgotten is Britain’s responsibility. Islam prior to 1918 was centralized and centred in Istanbul – it was being codified there (and in Ottoman Cairo) and was modernizing. … When Britain backed the Arabs in 1915, they also backed the Saud family and, intententionally, the reactionary Islam of the Arab peninsular to use against the Ottomans – as a consequence we’ve seen the rise to prominence of Wahabbist Islam.”—Aaron Kahland Yes, I think it’s not understood that they Koran in use today was written in the 1920’s.
-
Scandinavia
Everything good about Scandinavia existed before their ‘experiment’. Everything bad about Scandinavia has occurred because of their experiment. Geographic insularity breeds economic, social, political, and military complacency.Wealth allows greater expression of folly. That’s bad.https://mises.org/library/scandinavian-unexceptionalism-culture-markets-and-failure-third-way-socialism# -
Scandinavia
Everything good about Scandinavia existed before their ‘experiment’. Everything bad about Scandinavia has occurred because of their experiment. Geographic insularity breeds economic, social, political, and military complacency.Wealth allows greater expression of folly. That’s bad.https://mises.org/library/scandinavian-unexceptionalism-culture-markets-and-failure-third-way-socialism# -
A Reminder: “I Don’t Hate on Anyone.”
I’m not anti anyone at all. I’m not a racist in particular. I’m anti parasitism in all its forms, particularly falsehoods. I’m anti-folly. And I’m anti-conflict. Now, Natural Law of cooperation that we call ‘reciprocity’ tells us what NOT to do. So I end up writing a lot of “Reprimands” (as a follower explained recently.) And I write reprimands of pretty much group on earth – particularly my own. Where I come from is this: There was, that I know of, only one enlightenment – that of Britain – and it was purely empirical. Every culture, in response, has resisted that empirical enlightenment. If we were at the end of the french or german or russian counter-enlightenments, I would attack them. but the french, the germans, and the Russians (or at least the jewish Russians) committed suicide. At present we are at the end of the American Christian, and Ashkenazi-jewish counter-enlightenemtns, and in the midst of the Muslim counter-enlightenments. So of course, my work will place greater emphasis on current examples of interest in the current era, than it will on the french, german, and russian. And of course, I criticize the chinese and indian civilizations as well. Now, empirically, I have to accept that the fundamental problem all civilizations face is the underclass, and that all present, past, and even more so future, questions will be determined by how we answer the fundamental problem of the ‘drag’ that the underclasses place upon mankind. And I understand that this is a difficult problem. But that single problem is solved by soft eugenics: one child policy for the unproductive, and paying them to have either one child only or no children at all. This will, as a consequence attach status to having multiple children, and … attach lack of status to those with wealth that do not. And this is the only solution I know of that is achieved by reciprocity under natural law. So if I offend you then you must answer these questions differently. And you will, of necessity, have a very difficult time finding a better method of calculating a happy prosperous mankind without entering into hubris or deceit.Apr 04, 2018 11:17am